Aquaculture and Fisheries Consultation Analysis - Summary Report

Summary report of the analysis of the responses to the Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill Consultation, partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report

11 Key Issues and Trends

11.1 Overall, opinions on most of the issues in the Consultation
Document were strongly divided between the aquaculture industry and
freshwater fisheries/other environmental stakeholders.

11.2 With a small number of exceptions, the aquaculture industry
was largely critical of many of the proposed Bill provisions, with
most aquaculture industry respondents aligning themselves with the
response provided by the
SSPO. The opposition appeared to relate to
concerns about excessive regulation of the industry, and adding
unnecessary red tape to a growing industry. Several felt that the
Scottish Government was sending out mixed signals, with aspirations
for industry growth being undermined by proposals for tighter
regulation. The industry was generally supportive of many of the
proposals outlined in Section 4 of the Consultation Document.

11.3 Concerns also related to perceived financial and
reputational damage to the industry and the likely increases in
cost burdens and reduced ability to be competitive in worldwide
markets. A potential increase in liability of aquaculture industry
operators and their workers resulting from strict liability and
fixed penalties was also highlighted by both company responses and
individuals working within the industry.

11.4 In contrast, freshwater fisheries bodies were largely
supportive of proposals for the Bill, with the exception of some
opposition to the proposals in Section 4 of the Consultation
Document (i.e. relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries
management). The freshwater fisheries respondents largely referred
to the response of the
ASFB, with several consultees adding additional
comments on specific issues.

11.5 There were also contrasting views between the coarse
angling/mixed fishery industry operators and a number of
DSFBs. Several anglers requested greater
involvement in
DSFB activities. Some were disappointed that
other fish species are not included in the Bill provisions, raising
concerns about the potential loss of these fisheries.

11.6 The existing and proposed measures in Scotland were often
compared with those in other countries. Several respondents
suggested adopting measures or systems currently used in Canada
(British Columbia), Norway or Ireland. These suggestions related
largely to data collection and publication, site monitoring and
arbitration. Several respondents argued that most of the
aquaculture industry firms operating in Scotland are multi-national
and would be familiar with other regulatory regimes, Norway in
particular.

11.7 The potential financial implications of the Bill were also
raised by a range of stakeholders. Many were concerned at likely
increases in costs associated with the adoption and implementation
of the proposals in the Bill and questioned who will pay for them.
Aquaculture industry respondents, including the
SSPO, highlighted large potential losses to the
aquaculture industry in meeting the proposed requirements, although
most did not state a particular monetary figure. Possible costs to
the public sector were also raised, specifically relating to
implications for the budgets of
SEPA and
DSFBs arising from increased requirements and
responsibilities under the proposals.

11.8 Several respondents, from across the stakeholder groups,
called for additional consultation on some provisions in the Bill.
These included arbitration, unused consents, collection of samples,
wellboat controls, carcass tagging, conservation measures, data
collection, paying for progress, strict liability and fixed penalty
notices.